Two primary targets are now in the cross hairs of the global
tax-mongers: carbon and currency exchange. Carbon taxes are being
designed to modify social behavior while the tax on currency exchange is
designed to increase U.N. revenue from about $11 billion per year to
$1.5 trillion per year.

A revenue stream, independent of the voluntary contributions of
member states, is all that prevents the United Nations from imposing,
and enforcing, its vision of global governance.

Momentum is building for global taxation schemes to provide that
independent revenue stream.

More than two-thirds of the American people support the idea of a
global tax on foreign currency exchange, and a whopping 79 percent want
a global tax on carbon. These numbers were collected by the ATI
Foundation, and reported by the Washington-based Commission to Fund the
United Nations.

The numbers likely reflect the pollster’s skill at asking misleading
questions, rather than a true reflection of the American attitude toward
global taxation. Nevertheless, support for various forms of global
taxation is growing, pushed by well-funded organizations such as the
Commission to Fund the United Nations; the United Nations Association
U.S.A., Friends of the Earth; and a host of other environmental
organizations.

Carbon taxes are being discussed and presented as “Environmental Tax
Reform” (ETR) which means, simply, taxes on the use of fossil fuel,
while providing subsidies for non-carbon energy sources. Interestingly,
nuclear and hydro energy sources are excluded from consideration for
subsidies even though both are non-carbon energy sources.

Carbon taxes are designed to force people, especially those
heartless, greedy Americans, to reduce their consumption and live a
simpler, slower, healthier, lifestyle. Bicycles and frequent brisk walks
are in store for those lazy people who Al Gore describes as people who
burn a
gallon of gas to go buy a gallon of milk.

The taxes will be called anything but taxes, and imposed
incrementally. User fees, permits, registration fees, externalities cost
adjustments, are but a few of the terms used to disguise the carbon tax.
Bunker fuels (airplane and steamship fuel) are likely to be an early
victim. Air travel represents only 3 percent of transportation fuel use,
but it is easily taxed and the tax is easy to hide from the consumer.

Virtually all resource use is subject to ETR. Fossil fuel use will
lead the way, but logging, mining, ranching and even farming are the
focus of Environmental Tax Reform. Very little of the revenues from ETR
will go to the U.N. The real money prize lies in the tax on currency
exchange.

Global currency exchange exceeds $1 trillion per day, compared to
about $10 billion per day traded on all U.S. stock markets. Nobel
economist, James Tobin, calculated that if 0.05 percent of this exchange
were taken as a tax, it would produce about $1.5 trillion, more than
enough to fund all the U.N.’s ambitious social and peace-keeping
objectives. U.N. advocates have been working overtime to create the
mechanisms necessary to impose such a tax.

The Global Policy Forum, one of many non-government organizations
working to secure independent financing for the U.N., claims that the
United States is nearly $17 billion dollars in arrears in its U.N.
payments. Other nations, too, are behind in their payments. Therefore,
the argument goes, the U.N. must be free from the deadbeats, and have
its own source of income.

Another, perhaps more powerful argument, arises from the recent rash
of financial crises around the world. Mexico, Brazil, and most of Asia
have had to be bailed out of economic disaster by massive loans from the
International Monetary Fund, with money supplied by developed nations.

The Tobin tax would give the U.N. the necessary funds to provide
assistance to these nations in trouble, without calling on the United
States and other developed countries.

Moreover, of all the money exchanged in foreign markets, a full 80
percent is estimated to be market speculation. The Tobin tax would
dampen this speculation and reduce the profiteering by wealthy traders.

These arguments are gaining currency among Americans, and in the U.S.
Congress. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., may be the last obstacle preventing
global taxation. Even he may not be able to stop the momentum that is
building.

The United Nations is already empowered to collect taxes from seabed
mining operations. Maurice Strong, executive coordinator for U.N.
Reform, is now consolidating the U.N. financial mechanisms into a single
administrative department, a prerequisite step to global taxation. And
an army of U.N. NGOs are stepping up their propaganda campaign, trying
to persuade Americans to accept the idea of global taxation.

Once the U.N. is free from dependence upon the United States for its
revenue, it can impose and enforce its brand of international law upon
all the citizens of the world, including those who live in the United
States.